DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ZTE merely determines whether to user PTS based on the UE’s RRC state and eDRX cycle length, not on the “type information of a camped cell”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. ZTE shows a two parallel technology-specific PTW rule sets: one for eMTC which is for LTE/eNB technology and for NR redcap UE for NR technology. NR redcap is for gNB camped device category. Thus, ZTE shows applicability is there based on the terminal being an NR (gNB) redcap UE in the first place. The application of the rule tables applied by ZTE is a function of of the type cell/RAT is camped on.
Applicant argues that ZTE describes paging monitoring rules that apply uniformly to all NR redcap UEs and do not teach different PTW behavior based on whether the terminal is camped on gnB vs. eNB.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 doesn’t require the same determining step to branch across gNB/eNB in a unified test, i.e. the claim requires that the PTW determination be made “according to cell type”. The rule tables are applied based on whether the terminal is operating on NB-IoT/eMTC (eNB) or a NR redcap UE (gNB) context.
Applicant argues that type information of a camped cell includes information indicating whether the camped cell is served by a particular type of base station, e.g. gNB or eNB.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites “type information of a camped cell”, which is broader. ZTE also discloses in Annex A, that the PTW/PH formula parameter range is separately defined for NB-IoT as being distinct from the conventional case, thus confirming that ZTE’s PTW mechanics are pervasively tied to device/technology type and not RRC state and eDRX cycle length.
Applicant argues that “Proposal 2, based on the RRC states either not monitoring the PO, or using a paging cycle, thus skipping of PTW” improperly conflates RRC state with cell type.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner was alluding to RRC states in Proposal 3, where the first bullet provides that where the eDRX cycle is below 10.24s, paging and monitoring is based on the eDRX cyble rather than the PTW. Proposal 3’s rule that a UE skips PTW when eDRX cycle< 10.24s reads on gNB triggered skip limitation. The eDRX cycle condition in ZTE is not excluded by the claims.
Applicant argues that ZTE rules are predefined … and do not involve an examination of consideration for the terminal regarding what type of cell the terminal is camped on and ZTE does not disclose determination based on whether a camped cell is any particular type such as a gNB or an eNB.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It should be noted that Proposal 3 is expressly scoped to “NR redcap UE”, where the rule is applied once the terminal/UE has determined that it is on an NR cell. ZTE also discloses that on page 2, “it should not be difficult for SA to eDRX for NR redcap”, which can also be interpreted as type information of a camped cell.
Thus, all the claimed and argued limitations have been met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZTE CORPORATION ET AL: "Introduction of eDRX for redcap", 3GPP DRAFT; R2-2006905, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (3GPP), MOBILE COMPETENCE CENTRE; 650, ROUTE DES LUCIOLES; F-06921 SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS CEDEX; FRANCE vol. RAN WG2, no. electronic; 20200817 - 20200828 7 August 2020 (2020-08-07), XP051911780 herein ZTE.
Claim 1, ZTE discloses a paging method, comprising: receiving first information, wherein the first information comprises information of a paging cycle for a terminal (In NB-IoT / eMTC eDRX, the eDRX cycle is negotiated between UE and CN via NAS signaling. In Rl6 eDRX is already supported for eMTC and NB-IoT connected to 5GC. And in PAGING message, AMF inform gNB the paging eDRX information which including eDRX cycle and PTW window length. Thus, it should not be difficult for SA to eDRX for NR redcap; proposal 1, page 2); and
determining, according to type information of a camped cell on which the terminal is currently camped, whether to use paging time window (PTW) in monitoring paging in accordance with the first information (RRC IDLE, eDRX cycle> 10.24s within PTW: based on the shortest of UE specific DRX cycle and default paging cycle Outside PTW: not required to monitor PO; If eDRX cycle is equal to or larger than 10. 24s, the paging monitoring is based on PTW. RRC IDLE UE monitor paging within PTW. RRC INACTIVE UE monitor for RAN paging when outside PTW in addition to monitor paging within PTW; page 3).
Claim 2, ZTE discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the paging cycle comprises an extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) length value of 10.24 seconds (Pg. 3, RRC IDLE, eDRX cycle> 10.24s within PTW), and the determining, according to the type information of the camped cell, whether to use the PTW in monitoring the paging comprises: determining, in response to the type information indicating that the camped cell is a next generation nodeB (gNB), to skip using the PTW in monitoring the paging (Proposal 2, based on the RRC states, either not monitoring the PO, or using a paging cycle, thus skipping of PTW).
Claim 4, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1. ZTE discloses an apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming instructions for execution by the one or more processors (ZTE discloses conventional computing cellular devices used in conventional cellular networks, thus an apparatus with one or more processors and one or more memories coupled to the processors and containing instructions).
Claim 5, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 7, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 1.
ZTE discloses a system, comprising an access network device (Page 2: Discussion 2, implied, since SIB is transmitted by base stations (gNB in NR), thus an access network device) and a terminal (Page : Discussion 2, “The UE configured with eDRX cycle larger than…”). It should be noted that AMF, gNB and UE are capable of communication with each other and ZTE clearly discloses information transfer to the UE.
Claim 8. as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 10, ZTE discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising: monitoring the paging in accordance with the first information, and based on a determination of said determining (Pg. 2, monitor paging occasion based on PTW).
Claim 11, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 2.
Claim 12, ZTE discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein said determining comprises: determining, in response to the type information indicating that the camped cell is an evolved nodeB (eNB), to use the PTW in monitoring the paging, and the method further comprises: monitoring, using the PTW, the paging in accordance with the first information (Pg. 2, monitor paging occasion based on PTW).
Claim 13, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 10.
Claim 14, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 11.
Claim 15, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 12.
Claim 16, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 10.
Claim 17, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 11.
Claim 18, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZTE in view of US 20240073859 A1 herein Sogabe.
Claim 3, ZTE discloses the method according to claim 2. ZTE discloses eDRX length value of 10.24s. ZTE may not explicitly disclose wherein before said receiving the first information, the method further comprises: sending second information to request to use a paging cycle eDRX length value.
Sogabe discloses wherein before said receiving the first information, the method further comprises: sending second information to request to use a paging cycle eDRX length value (0056, UE informs the base station/core network eDRX parameters for paging cycle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ZTE to include configuration of eDRX parameters as taught by Sogabe so as to allow a dynamic configuration of eDRX cycles based on the connected state of UE (0121).
Claim 6, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 3.
Claim 9, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 3.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220408406 A1 – Provided is a method to operate a user equipment communicatively connected to at least two subscriber identity modules, which are at least assigned to a first and second a cellular network, wherein the user equipment has assigned an independent paging identity in each of the first and second cellular networks for registration in said cellular networks.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571)272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mehmood B. Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights